BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                            Complaint Case No.316 of 2010

Kuldeep R/o H.No.5, Single Battalion I.T.B.P.F. Chandigarh

                                                                                                             – Complainant                                                                     Versus

1.         Sony Ericson, SCO No.23, Sector 18-D, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

2.         Standard Teletronics, SCO 1049, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor.

3.         Salora International Ltd. SCO No.206-207, 2^nd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

4.         Salora-Chandigarh SCO 327, 2^nd Floor, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh.

                                                                                                             – Opposite Parties

Present:          None for Complainant.

                        None for OP No.1.

                        OP No.2 & 4 ex-parte.

                                                            ORDER

                        In this case, the OP No.3 was not being served upon which an order was made on 16.9.2010 to serve OP No.3 through publication in newspaper “The Tribune” for 20.10.2010. The complainant was directed to collect the notice from the office for publication in the newspaper. The charges for publication were to be deposited by him in the office of newspaper. On 20.10.2010, the complainant requested for extention of time for publication in the newspaper. The case was adjourned to 7.12.2010 for service of OP No.3 through publication in the newspaper. The complainant, however, did not come forward to collect notice for publication and case was adjourned to 20.1.2011. However, the complainant did not deposit the publication charges and have not come forward to collect the notice and deposit the publication charges. Thereafter, the service of OP No.3 was ordered to be got effected through ‘Munadi’ for 23.2.2011 on which date none appeared for the complainant. Even the complainant did not turn up to collect the notice and the case was adjourned to 3.3.2011. Today also none has turned up on behalf of complainant. We are, therefore, of the opinion that complainant is not interested in pursing his complaint. In the absence of publication charges, the OP No.3 cannot be served and in the absence of service, the complaint cannot proceed. The complaint is accordingly dismissed for non compliance of the order.

                        Copies of this order free of cost be supplied to the parties. The file be consigned.

03.03.2011                 (MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA)                        (RAJINDER SINGH GILL)      

                                                                MEMBER                                                     PRESIDING   MEMBER